Consider this: It's been standard practice in jazz soloing for just about ever to cleverly quote melodies of other tunes.
Or how about this: Both Beethoven in the Diabelli Variations and Bach in the Goldberg Variations devote a variation to quoting a tune written by another.
But if we going to focus simply on commerce, than let's consider this case: Dido release an album. No one cares. Then Eminem uses a sample from her album in his song "Stan" which is a huge hit. Suddenly people are interested in Dido. The song the sample came from is all over MTV. Now I ask: should Eminem have paid to clear the sample, or should Dido have paid for all the free exposure?
Recontextualizing as a creative act has been around for ever. Using old ideas to make new ideas is at the very heart of creativity.
Am I the only one who is deeply troubled by this post? Comparing Sharman to organized crime? Demanding that countries that don't comply with OUR copyright laws be considered "sponsor[s] of terrorism"? And all of this posted by an Anonymous Coward?
Methinks this is ugly propaganda posted by someone connected directly to the RIAA. If not, why not have the courage to sign your name to such an inflammatory post?
According to a NYTimes editorial a couple of weeks ago, Napster had 90 million unique users at its peak. I don't know exactly how many of those were American, though I hear that the bulk of internet users in the world are American. I don't know how many of them are, or will be by this November, over 18, but considering that Napster was so popular on college campuses, I think we can assume that the bulk of them are or soon will be over 18.
So maybe 45 million Americans of voting age used Napster. Maybe more. That's a larger number of people than the entire populations of African-Americans and Asian-Americans combined. (Check it out at www.census.gov).
My point here being that this is an enormous block of potential voters who are saying, by means of their behavior, that they resist to some degree the current protections offered to copyright holders. (And I mean by this not just IP protection but also access to store shelves or radio play--try to get your music played on commercial radio without major label backing.) No politician would ignore the voices of a group of this size if it were an ethnic group, so why are they so damn inclined to side with the media companies here?
I guess the answer is: we don't present a unified political front. But perhaps we should. Media companies already have too much power in this country.
...how come there's all this stuff about Jessica on your webpage?
I mean if you're going to share this moment with all of us, you really can't expect us not to do a little research about you, right?
Or, CmdrTaco, IF THAT IS YOUR REAL NAME, perhaps your webpage is chock full of lies. Maybe you didn't create/. after all.
Slashdot Mirror
After 15 years of being scooped by the Windows world: a two button mouse STANDARD on every computer.
Consider this: It's been standard practice in jazz soloing for just about ever to cleverly quote melodies of other tunes.
Or how about this: Both Beethoven in the Diabelli Variations and Bach in the Goldberg Variations devote a variation to quoting a tune written by another.
But if we going to focus simply on commerce, than let's consider this case: Dido release an album. No one cares. Then Eminem uses a sample from her album in his song "Stan" which is a huge hit. Suddenly people are interested in Dido. The song the sample came from is all over MTV. Now I ask: should Eminem have paid to clear the sample, or should Dido have paid for all the free exposure?
Recontextualizing as a creative act has been around for ever. Using old ideas to make new ideas is at the very heart of creativity.
Am I the only one who is deeply troubled by this post? Comparing Sharman to organized crime? Demanding that countries that don't comply with OUR copyright laws be considered "sponsor[s] of terrorism"? And all of this posted by an Anonymous Coward?
Methinks this is ugly propaganda posted by someone connected directly to the RIAA. If not, why not have the courage to sign your name to such an inflammatory post?
According to a NYTimes editorial a couple of weeks ago, Napster had 90 million unique users at its peak. I don't know exactly how many of those were American, though I hear that the bulk of internet users in the world are American. I don't know how many of them are, or will be by this November, over 18, but considering that Napster was so popular on college campuses, I think we can assume that the bulk of them are or soon will be over 18.
So maybe 45 million Americans of voting age used Napster. Maybe more. That's a larger number of people than the entire populations of African-Americans and Asian-Americans combined. (Check it out at www.census.gov).
My point here being that this is an enormous block of potential voters who are saying, by means of their behavior, that they resist to some degree the current protections offered to copyright holders. (And I mean by this not just IP protection but also access to store shelves or radio play--try to get your music played on commercial radio without major label backing.) No politician would ignore the voices of a group of this size if it were an ethnic group, so why are they so damn inclined to side with the media companies here?
I guess the answer is: we don't present a unified political front. But perhaps we should. Media companies already have too much power in this country.
...how come there's all this stuff about Jessica on your webpage? I mean if you're going to share this moment with all of us, you really can't expect us not to do a little research about you, right? Or, CmdrTaco, IF THAT IS YOUR REAL NAME, perhaps your webpage is chock full of lies. Maybe you didn't create /. after all.